Orders of Protection are meant to stop harassment, intimidation, and escalation. However, under current law, a critical loophole allows the protected party to initiate contact immediately after an order is issued, while the restrained party faces arrest or jail for any response.

This imbalance is regularly exploited. Some protected parties use post-order contact to intimidate, provoke, or bait the restrained person, knowing that any reply—even to ask the contact to stop—can result in criminal charges. The restrained party is effectively forced into silence under threat of arrest, while the initiating party faces little to no accountability.

Allowing one-sided contact undermines the purpose of protective orders. Instead of creating distance and safety, it can escalate fear, confusion, and misuse of the legal system. A system designed to de-escalate conflict should not permit court-protected intimidation.

Protective orders should prevent contact, not enable it. This loophole puts fairness, safety, and the integrity of the court at risk and must be addressed.

We are calling on state legislatures, judicial oversight bodies, and court systems across the United States to address this loophole in Orders of Protection.

Once an Order of Protection is issued and served, no party should be permitted to initiate contact, except through clearly defined, court-approved channels such as attorneys, child-related communication, or verified emergencies.

Establishing this standard nationwide would:

-Prevent intimidation and provocation
-Reduce false or technical violations
-Promote true de-escalation
-Strengthen public trust in protective orders

We urge states to adopt clear, uniform rules that ensure Orders of Protection function as tools for safety—not as instruments of fear or manipulation.